Are partitioning schemes applied to the disk as whole or are they partition specific?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
I was playing around with gdisk utility on my dual boot (windows 10 and fedora) by doing #gdisk /dev/sdaX and found out that for windows partitions, gdisk said MBR present while for linux partitions I wasn't seeing the expected GPT present. This makes me wonder why do separate logical disks need a separate partition scheme? All this time I was under the impression that windows 10 and linux share a common GPT scheme which were located in a location where the firmware or kernel can locate it and it is only update when changes are made to the partition like creation or deletion.
Can someone clarify if this is true?
disk
asked Dec 21 '18 at 9:15
Weezy
1185
add a comment |
I was playing around with gdisk utility on my dual boot (windows 10 and fedora) by doing #gdisk /dev/sdaX and found out that for windows partitions, gdisk said MBR present while for linux partitions I wasn't seeing the expected GPT present. This makes me wonder why do separate logical disks need a separate partition scheme? All this time I was under the impression that windows 10 and linux share a common GPT scheme which were located in a location where the firmware or kernel can locate it and it is only update when changes are made to the partition like creation or deletion.
Can someone clarify if this is true?
disk
asked Dec 21 '18 at 9:15
Weezy
1185
add a comment |
I was playing around with gdisk utility on my dual boot (windows 10 and fedora) by doing #gdisk /dev/sdaX and found out that for windows partitions, gdisk said MBR present while for linux partitions I wasn't seeing the expected GPT present. This makes me wonder why do separate logical disks need a separate partition scheme? All this time I was under the impression that windows 10 and linux share a common GPT scheme which were located in a location where the firmware or kernel can locate it and it is only update when changes are made to the partition like creation or deletion.
Can someone clarify if this is true?
disk
asked Dec 21 '18 at 9:15
Weezy
1185
I was playing around with gdisk utility on my dual boot (windows 10 and fedora) by doing #gdisk /dev/sdaX and found out that for windows partitions, gdisk said MBR present while for linux partitions I wasn't seeing the expected GPT present. This makes me wonder why do separate logical disks need a separate partition scheme? All this time I was under the impression that windows 10 and linux share a common GPT scheme which were located in a location where the firmware or kernel can locate it and it is only update when changes are made to the partition like creation or deletion.
Can someone clarify if this is true?
disk
disk
asked Dec 21 '18 at 9:15
Weezy
1185
asked Dec 21 '18 at 9:15
Weezy
1185
asked Dec 21 '18 at 9:15
Weezy
1185
asked Dec 21 '18 at 9:15
Weezy
1185
asked Dec 21 '18 at 9:15
Weezy
1185
1185
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Generally speaking, you should run partitioning tools on full disk devices, not individual partitions; in your case:
gdisk /dev/sda
I’m not sure why gdisk reports “MBR present” for Windows partitions (I would guess it’s some signature which is matched).
Partitioning schemes are designed for managing entire volumes.
(There are some cases where partitions exist inside partitions, e.g. with logical partitions inside extended partitions, or BSD disklabels inside an MBR partition. They are really implementation accidents, and not really germane to the discussion here; in particular, logical partitions are managed by full-disk partition tools. As another aside, it’s possible to have partitions anywhere using the Linux loop device, but feel free to ignore that here.)
answered Dec 21 '18 at 9:47
Stephen Kitt
164k24365445
One of the reasons that the EFI partitioning scheme is an improvement is that it has unambiguous signatures and checksums to match, which the MBR partitioning scheme largely has not.gdisk(and indeedfdiskand anything else) has no way to distinguish between the primary MBR and secondary MBRs in extended partitions, and the block device for an extended partition will look like a (faulty) MBR-partitioned disc.
– JdeBP
Dec 21 '18 at 12:10
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490289%2fare-partitioning-schemes-applied-to-the-disk-as-whole-or-are-they-partition-spec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Generally speaking, you should run partitioning tools on full disk devices, not individual partitions; in your case:
gdisk /dev/sda
I’m not sure why gdisk reports “MBR present” for Windows partitions (I would guess it’s some signature which is matched).
Partitioning schemes are designed for managing entire volumes.
(There are some cases where partitions exist inside partitions, e.g. with logical partitions inside extended partitions, or BSD disklabels inside an MBR partition. They are really implementation accidents, and not really germane to the discussion here; in particular, logical partitions are managed by full-disk partition tools. As another aside, it’s possible to have partitions anywhere using the Linux loop device, but feel free to ignore that here.)
answered Dec 21 '18 at 9:47
Stephen Kitt
164k24365445
One of the reasons that the EFI partitioning scheme is an improvement is that it has unambiguous signatures and checksums to match, which the MBR partitioning scheme largely has not.gdisk(and indeedfdiskand anything else) has no way to distinguish between the primary MBR and secondary MBRs in extended partitions, and the block device for an extended partition will look like a (faulty) MBR-partitioned disc.
– JdeBP
Dec 21 '18 at 12:10
add a comment |
Generally speaking, you should run partitioning tools on full disk devices, not individual partitions; in your case:
gdisk /dev/sda
I’m not sure why gdisk reports “MBR present” for Windows partitions (I would guess it’s some signature which is matched).
Partitioning schemes are designed for managing entire volumes.
(There are some cases where partitions exist inside partitions, e.g. with logical partitions inside extended partitions, or BSD disklabels inside an MBR partition. They are really implementation accidents, and not really germane to the discussion here; in particular, logical partitions are managed by full-disk partition tools. As another aside, it’s possible to have partitions anywhere using the Linux loop device, but feel free to ignore that here.)
answered Dec 21 '18 at 9:47
Stephen Kitt
164k24365445
One of the reasons that the EFI partitioning scheme is an improvement is that it has unambiguous signatures and checksums to match, which the MBR partitioning scheme largely has not.gdisk(and indeedfdiskand anything else) has no way to distinguish between the primary MBR and secondary MBRs in extended partitions, and the block device for an extended partition will look like a (faulty) MBR-partitioned disc.
– JdeBP
Dec 21 '18 at 12:10
add a comment |
Generally speaking, you should run partitioning tools on full disk devices, not individual partitions; in your case:
gdisk /dev/sda
I’m not sure why gdisk reports “MBR present” for Windows partitions (I would guess it’s some signature which is matched).
Partitioning schemes are designed for managing entire volumes.
(There are some cases where partitions exist inside partitions, e.g. with logical partitions inside extended partitions, or BSD disklabels inside an MBR partition. They are really implementation accidents, and not really germane to the discussion here; in particular, logical partitions are managed by full-disk partition tools. As another aside, it’s possible to have partitions anywhere using the Linux loop device, but feel free to ignore that here.)
answered Dec 21 '18 at 9:47
Stephen Kitt
164k24365445
Generally speaking, you should run partitioning tools on full disk devices, not individual partitions; in your case:
gdisk /dev/sda
I’m not sure why gdisk reports “MBR present” for Windows partitions (I would guess it’s some signature which is matched).
Partitioning schemes are designed for managing entire volumes.
(There are some cases where partitions exist inside partitions, e.g. with logical partitions inside extended partitions, or BSD disklabels inside an MBR partition. They are really implementation accidents, and not really germane to the discussion here; in particular, logical partitions are managed by full-disk partition tools. As another aside, it’s possible to have partitions anywhere using the Linux loop device, but feel free to ignore that here.)
answered Dec 21 '18 at 9:47
Stephen Kitt
164k24365445
answered Dec 21 '18 at 9:47
Stephen Kitt
164k24365445
answered Dec 21 '18 at 9:47
Stephen Kitt
164k24365445
answered Dec 21 '18 at 9:47
Stephen Kitt
164k24365445
164k24365445
One of the reasons that the EFI partitioning scheme is an improvement is that it has unambiguous signatures and checksums to match, which the MBR partitioning scheme largely has not.gdisk(and indeedfdiskand anything else) has no way to distinguish between the primary MBR and secondary MBRs in extended partitions, and the block device for an extended partition will look like a (faulty) MBR-partitioned disc.
– JdeBP
Dec 21 '18 at 12:10
add a comment |
One of the reasons that the EFI partitioning scheme is an improvement is that it has unambiguous signatures and checksums to match, which the MBR partitioning scheme largely has not.gdisk(and indeedfdiskand anything else) has no way to distinguish between the primary MBR and secondary MBRs in extended partitions, and the block device for an extended partition will look like a (faulty) MBR-partitioned disc.
– JdeBP
Dec 21 '18 at 12:10
One of the reasons that the EFI partitioning scheme is an improvement is that it has unambiguous signatures and checksums to match, which the MBR partitioning scheme largely has not.
gdisk (and indeed fdisk and anything else) has no way to distinguish between the primary MBR and secondary MBRs in extended partitions, and the block device for an extended partition will look like a (faulty) MBR-partitioned disc.– JdeBP
Dec 21 '18 at 12:10
One of the reasons that the EFI partitioning scheme is an improvement is that it has unambiguous signatures and checksums to match, which the MBR partitioning scheme largely has not.
gdisk (and indeed fdisk and anything else) has no way to distinguish between the primary MBR and secondary MBRs in extended partitions, and the block device for an extended partition will look like a (faulty) MBR-partitioned disc.– JdeBP
Dec 21 '18 at 12:10
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490289%2fare-partitioning-schemes-applied-to-the-disk-as-whole-or-are-they-partition-spec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown